OWENS Et Al. v. HILL
295 Ga. 302
| Ga. | 2014Background
- Warren Lee Hill, convicted and sentenced to death for an inmate murder, sought injunctions and discovery to learn identities of persons/entities that manufactured or supplied the pentobarbital to be used in his execution.
- Georgia statute (OCGA § 42-5-36(d) effective July 1, 2013) classifies identifying information about execution participants and drug suppliers as confidential state secrets.
- Superior Court of Fulton County granted interlocutory injunctive relief (called a stay) preventing use of an undisclosed compounding-pharmacy batch; State appealed to Georgia Supreme Court.
- State produced limited, redacted testing assurances; Hill argued secrecy prevented him from proving an Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), due process, First Amendment, and access-to-courts claim.
- Georgia Supreme Court held the case not moot (capable of repetition yet evading review), found superior court had limited jurisdiction to enjoin state officers, but concluded the confidentiality statute is constitutional and the injunction was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness | Expired drug batch irrelevant because State will again use undisclosed source, so case is live | Case could be moot because specific batch expired | Not moot — capable of repetition yet evading review; appeal proceeds |
| Jurisdiction/venue | Superior court could and should enjoin use of undisclosed drug/source | Only sentencing court issues execution order; DOC decides drugs | Superior court has limited authority to enjoin state officers over which it has personal jurisdiction regarding use of specific drugs, venue in Fulton proper; injunction is distinct from direct stay of execution |
| Right to discovery / access to courts / due process | Statute denies access to information essential to make a colorable Eighth Amendment claim; secrecy prevents proof | No constitutional right to forced disclosure; Hill had access to courts and received process; claims speculative | No denial of access or due process because Hill failed to show the statute prevented presentation of a colorable claim; mere speculation insufficient |
| Eighth Amendment / injunction | Use of pentobarbital from a compounding pharmacy poses substantial, intolerable risk of severe pain or suffering; identity of supplier is essential to prove it | Evidence showed only speculative, non-credible risk; compounding pharmacies routinely fill many prescriptions; State safeguards and testing mitigate risk | Hill did not meet Baze-related threshold showing of a substantial and imminent risk; injunction was an abuse of discretion and should be dissolved |
| First Amendment / public right to know | Public and Hill have interest in disclosure to ensure humane methods and public scrutiny | Government may classify/confidentially protect information; confidentiality protects participants from harassment and preserves availability of execution services | No First Amendment right to obtain this information; historical practice and functional interests support confidentiality; test for access fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (plurality) (Eighth Amendment method-of-execution test)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (standing for claims about risk of future harm)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference threshold)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (method-of-execution claims as civil actions, not habeas)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (public access test: historical practice and functional role)
- Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524 (government may withhold/classify information without violating First Amendment)
- Whitaker v. Livingston, 732 F.3d 465 (5th Cir.) (access-to-courts claim must be tethered to a plausible Eighth Amendment violation)
- Hill v. Owens, 292 Ga. 380 (Ga.) (recognizing DOC responsibility to choose execution drugs)